Tarefa causcibench_real.q074

Veredito

Pergunta feita ao analista

What is the effect of receiving a get-out-the-vote phone call two weeks prior to the election on voter turnout?

Como o agente resolveu e como foi validado

Resumo passo a passo do que o agente executou, por que o caminho está correto e como cada verificação conferiu o resultado.

1. 1Preparação da base de dados
   panagopoulos_timing— The dataset consists of 25,000 registered voters in Rochester, New York, who were part of a randomized field experiment during the November 2005 municipal elections. Voters were randomly assigned to one of four groups: a phone reminder call scheduled for 4 weeks before Election Day, 2 weeks before, 3 days before, or a control group that received no call. The calls were nonpartisan get-out-the-vote reminders, delivered using standardized scripts. The unit of observation is the individual registered voter, and only those appearing on the official registration list were included. The main outcome is voter turnout in the 2005 election, while additional measures capture past voting history, party registration, demographics, and a predicted propensity to vote. The dataset also records whether each assigned reminder call was actually completed, allowing for comparison between group assignment and the reality of who was contacted. Data variables: vtr_gen01: Voted (2001) vtr_gen03: Voted (2003) vtr_gen05: Outcome: Voted 2005 treated: Successfully contacted four_weeks: Experimental group: Called 4 weeks before election two_weeks: Experimental group: Called 2 weeks before election three_days: Experimental group: Called 3 days before election control: Experimental group: Control, i.e., did not receive any calls democrat: Registered Democrat republican: Registered Republican unenrolled: Unaffiliated other_party: Other party registration age: Age (years) age_squared: Age squared contacted_4weeks: Successfully contacted: 4 weeks contacted_2weeks: Successfully contacted: 2 weeks contacted_3days: Successfully contacted: 3 days vote_prop: Predicted vote propensity use: Subject included id: Subject ID
2. 2Chamada que gerou a resposta finalinfer.ols(Regressão linear por mínimos quadrados ordinários (MQO))citada na resposta

   Ver chamada call_2b480b8b nos detalhes

   Linha de base ingênua: regressão do resultado no tratamento, sem controles.

   Por que este é o caminho de referência: causcibench_metadata_rule/1: iv
   Argumentos principais

   dataset:

   "panagopoulos_timing"

   intercept:

   true

   level:

   0,950.95

   se:

   "HC1"

   x:

   ["contacted_2weeks"]

   y:

   "vtr_gen05"

   Resultado calculado

   • coef.contacted_2weeks = 0,0274019 0.02740192262411973
     Coefficient on contacted_2weeks in the regression of vtr_gen05
   Diagnósticos: n_obs = 25.00025000 (observations used) · k = 22 (parameters estimated, fixed-effect dummies included) · r2 = 0,0001672280.00016722761248788576 · df_resid = 24.99824998 · se_type = "HC1" (heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors (HC1))
3. 3Conferência de lastro e resposta final

   Todos os 1 números escritos na resposta foram conferidos contra as ferramentas e o enunciado (nenhum número sem lastro).

   Números encontrados: 0,02740
   Figuras citadas: call_2b480b8b:coef.contacted_2weeks
   • ✓
     #0resposta com lastro

     every number in the answer was stated by a tool call
   • ✗
     #1figura da resposta próxima

     CauSciBench effect accuracy: |answer figure − gold| ≤ 5% of |gold|

Valores esperados e de onde vêm

Verificações

Caminho de referência e caminho do agente

A chamada de referência ao lado da chamada que deu a resposta, argumento por argumento.

Trajetória

Cada evento na ordem em que aconteceu: turnos do modelo, chamadas de ferramentas, guardas, transformações e pontuação.

1. 0Início

   What is the effect of receiving a get-out-the-vote phone call two weeks prior to the election on voter turnout?

   panagopoulos_timing (agent)

   The dataset consists of 25,000 registered voters in Rochester, New York, who were part of a randomized field experiment during the November 2005 municipal elections. Voters were randomly assigned to one of four groups: a phone reminder call scheduled for 4 weeks before Election Day, 2 weeks before, 3 days before, or a control group that received no call. The calls were nonpartisan get-out-the-vote reminders, delivered using standardized scripts. The unit of observation is the individual registered voter, and only those appearing on the official registration list were included. The main outcome is voter turnout in the 2005 election, while additional measures capture past voting history, party registration, demographics, and a predicted propensity to vote. The dataset also records whether each assigned reminder call was actually completed, allowing for comparison between group assignment and the reality of who was contacted. Data variables: vtr_gen01: Voted (2001) vtr_gen03: Voted (2003) vtr_gen05: Outcome: Voted 2005 treated: Successfully contacted four_weeks: Experimental group: Called 4 weeks before election two_weeks: Experimental group: Called 2 weeks before election three_days: Experimental group: Called 3 days before election control: Experimental group: Control, i.e., did not receive any calls democrat: Registered Democrat republican: Registered Republican unenrolled: Unaffiliated other_party: Other party registration age: Age (years) age_squared: Age squared contacted_4weeks: Successfully contacted: 4 weeks contacted_2weeks: Successfully contacted: 2 weeks contacted_3days: Successfully contacted: 3 days vote_prop: Predicted vote propensity use: Subject included id: Subject ID

   file 37ac4466ad26ac40012073e833298d7e3f2f8e8fbe8eb1fa90268ec2e1181ad7 · frame —
2. 1Turno do modelo
   call_45c6a1efnaive-olsFim: tool_use0 ms0 de entrada · 0 de saída · 0 de raciocínio · 0 em cache

   Texto visível

   Linha de base ingênua: regressão do resultado no tratamento, sem controles.

   Chamadas pedidas

   • infer.ols

     {
       "dataset": "panagopoulos_timing",
       "x": [
         "contacted_2weeks"
       ],
       "y": "vtr_gen05"
     }

   Mensagens (formato neutro)Instruções do sistemaFerramentas oferecidas
3. 2Ferramenta
   infer.ols— Regressão linear por mínimos quadrados ordinários (MQO)v0.1.0call_2b480b8bdecidido pelo modeloreexecutável

   Motivo: Linha de base ingênua: regressão do resultado no tratamento, sem controles.

   Argumentos

   {
     "cluster": null,
     "controls": [],
     "dataset": "panagopoulos_timing",
     "fe": [],
     "intercept": true,
     "level": 0.95,
     "se": "HC1",
     "subset": null,
     "weights": null,
     "x": [
       "contacted_2weeks"
     ],
     "y": "vtr_gen05"
   }

   Figuras call_2b480b8b

   Chave	Valor	Valor bruto	Erro-padrão	IC
   coef.contacted_2weeks Coefficient on contacted_2weeks in the regression of vtr_gen05	0,0274019	0.02740192262411973	0,01337360.013373634313780624	0,00118881 – 0,053615

   Diagnósticos

   • n_obs = 25.00025000 (observations used)
   • k = 22 (parameters estimated, fixed-effect dummies included)
   • r2 = 0,0001672280.00016722761248788576
   • df_resid = 24.99824998
   • se_type = "HC1" (heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors (HC1))
   • n_clusters = — (errors not clustered)

   Derivação matemática e pressupostos

   coef.contacted_2weeks

   1. Coeficiente de contacted_2weeks na regressão por mínimos quadrados ordinários de vtr_gen05.→ 0,0274019 (0.02740192262411973)
   2. Erro-padrão robusto à heterocedasticidade (HC1): a raiz da variância estimada do coeficiente.ep = √V_jj→ 0,0133736 (0.013373634313780624)
   3. Intervalo de 95% de confiança: a estimativa mais ou menos o valor crítico da distribuição t de Student com 24998 graus de liberdade vezes o erro-padrão.IC = β ± c · ep

   Pressupostos do estimador

   • the conditional mean of the outcome is linear in the regressors
   • errors are independent across observations; their variance may differ

   Tabelas (1)

   {
     "coefficients": [
       {
         "ci_high": 0.5138086070314691,
         "ci_low": 0.5010291974836449,
         "coef": 0.507418902257557,
         "p": 0,
         "se": 0.0032599555118817754,
         "t": 155.65209414917896,
         "term": "Intercept"
       },
       {
         "ci_high": 0.053615033418993985,
         "ci_low": 0.0011888118292454723,
         "coef": 0.02740192262411973,
         "p": 0.04047731463519772,
         "se": 0.013373634313780624,
         "t": 2.0489510914683757,
         "term": "contacted_2weeks"
       }
     ]
   }

   Hashes SHA-256 e metadados de reprodução

   Digests dos dados

   panagopoulos_timing a9840be060a94f8bcf5d9657e12a817f7e5a23d132aea3f8161124cbc615d87e

   sha256 do resultado

   3226d0aaba71e5ed976e0d7a470ec4e8d30b4cdbb916b0af4b6f9bc04ab1446b

   Resultado mostrado ao modelo
4. 3Turno do modelo
   call_bfb15694naive-olsFim: tool_use0 ms0 de entrada · 0 de saída · 0 de raciocínio · 0 em cache

   Chamadas pedidas

   • submit_answer (meta-ferramenta)

     {
       "answer": "Estimativa ingênua (infer.ols): coef.contacted_2weeks = 0,02740.",
       "caveats": [],
       "figure_refs": [
         "call_2b480b8b:coef.contacted_2weeks"
       ]
     }

   Mensagens (formato neutro)Instruções do sistemaFerramentas oferecidas
5. 4Guarda
   resposta aceita

   Números encontrados

   0,02740

   Sem lastro

   —

   Não citados

   —

   1 nova(s) tentativa(s) restante(s)
6. 5Resposta

   Estimativa ingênua (infer.ols): coef.contacted_2weeks = 0,02740.

   Figuras citadas: call_2b480b8b:coef.contacted_2weeks · Parada: answered

   Figura da resposta: call_2b480b8b:coef.contacted_2weeks = 0,02740190.02740192262411973 (se 0,01337360.013373634313780624)
7. 6Pontuação
   #0resposta com lastropassouobrigatóriaevery number backed
8. 7Pontuação
   #1figura da resposta próximafalhouobrigatória0.02740192262 vs -0.007

Épocas × verificações

Tentativas

Cada tentativa é seu próprio arquivo e é publicada; só a última de cada época é pontuada.

• época 1, tentativa 1falhoupontuada(exibindo)

Downloads desta tarefa